I will admit, I am an idiot (those that care can bookmark this page to quote this at a later time). You ever know something, without grasping the significance? That happened to me. I started down the path I am on because of the stack of short range kills, but the long line of long range kills and I was wondering what's up. I realized, the histogram has all the maps overlayed, and that long right side tail is probably that whole Harkus whisker between 3rd and 4th quartile.

Concur, reworking the data to above/below the mean would still show a skewed plot. But it would be interesting to see where the mean and distribution is now compared to what the devs want. It'd be interesting to see how the short range game is as well. Is the HB getting kills in the 0-10m range (or is the first bar filled with mostly 10-20m kills)? If so, that is another thing to potentially look at. That range is suppose to be the melee prime zone. We are all saying we like the HB where it is (it needs work, but overall we like it), but is it where the devs want it?

Probably this is why the devs carefully release data. All we do is ask more questions and ask for different formats, then try and rationalize it all based on our in game experiences, bias, and whatever math we half remember from academia. Sorry, I'll stand by my "it'd be interesting" statements, but retract my requests.

I also concur with Forj that the HB should be able to contribute to the point capping, and certainly defending. Maybe not every point, but a vast majority. That's kinda what the braced weapon is for, right? It seems like a lot of maps cater to this by having a Shooting Gallery in the form of a second story. That set up seems to work well. If no one comes up to say hello, we can command the bottom floor. If someone does come up, then we have a right proper fight, usually ending in a dead HB (as is right proper for melee).

Ok, well I believe the data is skewed to shorter ranges for other reasons:

Think about what happens on the battlefield normally, even on maps with longer lines of sight (Torias, Pegasus, Blackbolt, Maggon, Zedek and the newest one which I forget) a Heavy Bolter or equivalent could set up shop anywhere where there is longer lines of sight, even to chokepoints, and not get that many kills because not running across the open ground has been drilled into most players heads already due to PC power.

Harkus is the only map where lots of players can conceivably go Heavy Bolter at the same time and do well. It is a shooting gallery, in every sense of the word. Other maps don't have these situations because of cover leading into/around buildings. Also here, players have it drilled into their heads to sneak into a capture point because of Vehichles and JPA spam.

So we have a population that is literally conditioned to engage at medium range or less, this is exemplefied by most Astartes weapons doing significant damage at 40-60m ranges. Harkus is an exception because it literally forces players to not follow these rules. Theres only three ways in and they are all able to be shut down by Heavy Bolters. You can't do that on any other map, and not because of lines of sight, but because of the possibility of always getting flanked. If, on Harkus, we could deploy via drop pod or Jump Pack squads working in unison could actually jump to the top of the wall and pose a threat, it would be a drastically different story.

Heavy Bolter wielders are forced into closer ranged fights in order to be near team mates so they have protection against the threats that prevent them from staying back and providing pure fire support.

As an exercise, it would be interesting to have a squad of 5 players, 4 with Heavy Bolters and one Chainsword Apothecary to hold off Assaults and heal, and have this squad purely fire support across the map. Count how many more long range kills you get.

Fyi, most of those shooting gallery spots are between 20 and 40m, some are further yes.

@Zed-Avatar I think we're actually in agreement regarding the overall reasons, we're just talking about two different aspects. The range of kills is skewed to shorter distances because that's where more engagements happen, due to the availability of cover and LOS blockers.

Well, yes and no. As I said there are certainly points where you can set up for fire support, even into capture locations, but other players on your team have a shorter engagement range so you lack the anti assault support you need to stay in that position, excepting Harkus because of its design with lives, the defenders absolutely cover heavy weapons. The guys with boltguns and stalkers cover you up on the walls and in the tunnel for when they get too close. This doesn't happen so much on Olipsis, Torias and the other maps. So you instinctively move closer to be with your squad and lose performance because you are no longer in your sweet spot for range.

I truly don't think it has to do with LOS.

I really need to stop teaching space marines how to kill better... lol

I will go back to Lurking now.

Don't forget because it is easier to kill at shorter range due to a larger target.

I would be interested to see if there is a dead zone between 0 and X for the HB though. We keep claiming that melee owns the short game, but is it really the case? Is there a range inside which the HB kills become outliers again?

I will concur with Zed that back in the day I stuck close to the front lines, for reasons we've gone over. However, with the new HB mechanics, one doesn't need to be as close to be as effective, so I don't find myself following the GAs like a puppydog anymore. However, it does still happen as we are moving into a new point. I will say that now the reasons I am moving is more for LOS reasons, either something is blocking me, or the main assault direction has shifted. However, every time I move, there is chance for a meeting engagement at close range, and when I set up, it takes a little while to kill (or die) and get a buffer around me (or respawn).

What I mean by LOS, is that I can't kill people I can't see. If the only targets that present themselves are <50m away because of buildings, then I'm only going to be getting kills at <50m, no matter how effective I am at the 250m+ range. And the further away someone is from me, the more likely it is that something will be between me and them.

And speaking personally, I've never instinctively moved up to be close to my team, because I've been stubborn about sticking to the range I should be at. The only reasons I've moved up on a point capture is when there is no brace point covering the approach the team is working on, or when no-one seems to be trying to push in, and I get sick of plinking away at targets that no-one capitalises on.

From what I have seen, there is no dead zone if you will. HBs do score kills at point blank, but usually in teamfight situations. The situations in which I infer that Melee owns Heavy is primarily in solo encounters. As I mentioned and @Forj just said, being with the squad is not neccesarily the best place to be, IF said squad is advancing.

Yes, I understand, and you are likely playing to the best strengths of the class, but not all players are. Hence the data doesn't reflect your actions but those of the entire community. I am trying to explain why the data reflects shorter range numbers, not criticizing your approach or technique. Your examination of the data seems very biased based on what you specifically experience(d) rather than observing others, who will act and react differently.

This is just the way I see it, the way it seems to be for me.

I would hazard to suggest that what is needed is more intuitive feedback to players to adopt the playing style that more suits the class. Just like how Melta weapons clearly don't work very well at long range but absolutely MELT targets at close range, its super visible and intuitive. There is nothing that indicates to other players that sticking around a Heavy and supporting him is good for the team. There is very little reason to help the guys providing fire support because all are vainglorious and want as many points as possible.

Heavies braced could emit a +XP tick and multiplier zone similar to point defense bonuses you now get around a Capture Point to help encourage allies to stick around and support Heavies engaged in suppresive activities. Maybe even as a Wargear option or Consumable option (like planting a Flag). Squad leaders already get an XP bonus zone ability, but it is pretty weak right now.

Just ideas at the end here.

Concur with your assessment of the short range game. However, it still might show up in the data that HBs get less kills at the very short ranges. If not, I would say that is something to look at since our notions (and defensive argument) that melee owns the short game might not be true. Valid, most short range kills I've experienced have been with a friend there helping, so it was 50/50 who actually got credit, but if someone else got the kill, then that means even less kill counts for the HB at short range.

It's always going to be difficult to convince people to stick with and protect the HB. After all, a sloppy HB can get you killed just as quick as an adversary, and the suppression thrown out can be just as negatively reinforcing. I think the onus needs to be on the HB player to pick their spots smartly, balancing team support with level of risk rather than try and force the team to rally 'round the fat guy. I'm good with higher risk, others might not be.

Besides, if there is a boost for protecting the HWs, why not a boost for sticking together with any teammate? Then we start to get a WAAAAAGH! (Is it spelled with 5 a's, or 20? I've seen it both ways.) sort of mechanic going. Great for Orks, not quite for the other factions.